Story Archive January 6, 2004 (Page 1 of 3)

Posted By: Toby
Date: Sunday, 6 April 2003

In Response To: Your Opinion about a USA-led War on Iraq (TALKING POINT)

A tribute to George W. Bush, the greatest liar in American history!

Sorry to disturb you Americans in your present fanatic patriotism and your blind support for George W. Bush's personal little war down there in Iraq, but due to the fact the American media all seem to be censored by your government or massively influenced in what they are allowed to broadcast or write, I have to mention some things. I'm not that naive to believe I can change the public opinion of the big crowd of patriotic Americans, who believe in every word Mr. Bush tells them on TV, but perhaps at least some of you are interested in the difference between what you are told by Mr. Bush and what's true, so keep on reading.

First I have to tell you that I'm European and as most Europeans, as most human beings on this planet, I have a quite different opinion about the present war in Iraq compared to the American people. Don't get me wrong, there're a lot of great things about America and I'm still grateful for everything America did for Europe 50 years ago. So I'm definitely not anti-American! In my neighbourhood there's a McDonalds, a Pizza Hut and a Burger King which I'm visiting often, I wear Levis by day and Calvin's by night, I used to smoke Marlboros and Coke is still my favourite drink, I watch CNN and listen to American pop-music, I've seen at least a thousand Hollywood movies and I cried on September, 11th. I even dreamed of living in the US after a visit there some years ago and I applied for a green card afterwards. You can say I dreamed the American Dream, but Mr. Bush managed to turn it into a nightmare.

I used to believe in America as the leading democracy of the world, the land of freedom and freedom of speech, I believed in America as the "good" country, where human rights, justice and righteousness were important values, but during the last month I had to forget about that. I had to forget about that, because your president George W. Bush insisted on an illegitimate and illegal war down there in Iraq and he has started it for dishonest reasons. I never thought that something like that could happen in a democratic country like the US and I never thought that an American president would break international laws, constantly lie to his people, ignore the opinion of the whole rest of the world and start a war of aggression for fictitious reasons.

You don't believe that? You are still fool enough to believe Mr. Bush started this war because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and threatens his neighbours in the Gulf region or even the western countries with them? Well, it's a lie and your president knows it's a lie! The American government tried to convince the leaders of the world and the Security Council of the United Nations for more than a year now of their fictitious idea, that Saddam has chemical weapons left and wants to use it against whoever, but they were never able to prove it. In fact they weren't able to prove it for good reasons and nobody believed them for even better reasons, because the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction don't exist anymore.

The principal witness of Mr. Bush was a man called Kamal Hussein, a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein who fled the Iraq some years ago and was the head of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programme up to this date. He was showed around everywhere and had to testify in front of everybody who would listen to him, how much chemical weapons Iraq produced and obtained during the 80s. But what the American government kept very quiet is, that Kamal Hussein also said that he, as the head of Iraq's weapons programme, ordered and supervised the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons, which weren't already destroyed by the UN weapons inspectors. He was the responsible person and who would know it better than him? Of course he wasn't allowed to tell that to the American public, because this point of his testimony collided with the plans to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi regime.

You see, there are good reasons why the UN weapons inspectors didn't find weapons of mass destruction during their raids in Iraq. They searched the country for month, they had access to every place, though the US government often tried to claim something different, and they did not find one single hint for chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. Besides, if the Iraqis had any weapons of mass destruction left, they would have already used it during the last weeks of war. If you have them and don't use them in the moment hostile and superior forces are after you, attacking your country, bombing your cities, killing your people, when will you use them then? And the fact that the American troops found gasmasks a week ago and some vaccine or antidote against chemical weapons yesterday, doesn't prove anything, even if the government proudly announced that stuff as the "final proof" to the American public. Every army in every country of the world has tons of gasmasks and Iraq was allowed to have them, too. And if the US-led troops will find some chemicals in future, there is still the possibility that the CIA or whoever placed them there, because Mr. Bush desperately needs to present some to the world.

So the only illegal and internationally banned weapons which are used in Iraq at the moment are American cluster bombs... Don't get me wrong, I don't want to create any sympathies for Saddam, because I despise him and I think he really deserves to be eliminated, but is dropping cluster bombs on Iraqi villages the right way? Besides, I think they didn't tell it on CNN, so perhaps I have to tell you first. The American Airforce dropped quite a lot of cluster bombs in the southern part of Iraq during the last days, a very cruel and destructive sort of bomb banned and forbidden by international treaties, almost all countries except for the US signed. War is a cruel thing and only fools believed in the promises of Mr. Bush, that it would be a very short war with only precise operations and without a lot of civilian casualties, but is it necessary to use such bombs? Though your troops have clearly won every battle they were in with almost no resistance? Why using bombs that snip everything alive in pieces in an area of half a mile?

Two days ago I saw pictures of Iraqi civilians on TV, especially little Iraqi children, who got hit by such a bomb. They were cut into pieces and those pieces were scattered all over. Even those people who were quite far away from the main bombing ground were hit by shrapnels and got their arms or legs cut off. And that wasn't propaganda provided by the Iraqi TV, it was a report from an independent TV station! Imagine that for a second, dozens of children at the age of under 10, lying around, bleeding, with their arms or legs cut off. There were such a lot of casualties, so many dead and wounded bodies, that they had to carry them away with lorries. In that moment I felt real anger about America, the country I once liked, admired and wanted to live in, for the first time! That's wrong what you are doing there and it's definitely not necessary! There are other and less cruel ways to lead a war Mr. Bush...

But back now to the original topic. If that story with the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a lie, what do you want to believe then to comfort your conscience? That Saddam Hussein cooperated with Bin Laden and Al Quaeda and was responsible for September, 11th? Bush's government never got tired to mention that Saddam supported those terrorists, that he even instructed them, and that this is a reason for a war against him. But again they weren't able to provide any details about that claim or give any proof. And there are again good reasons why they couldn't do this, because a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden simply doesn't exist. They are both Moslem and crooks, but that's all the two of them have in common. Saddam is a Sunite and not very religious. He has worked very hard for over two decades to suppress all Islamic radicals in his country and to avoid an Islamic state like that one in Iran. Bin Laden is a Shiite, a Moslem branch, which wants to establish Islamic states all over the whole world, even in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Saddam Hussein despises Osama Bin Laden, because he is a threat to his power and leadership. That's a fact and every Islam expert can tell you they would never work together, not under any circumstances.

I don't know what you're paying your thousands of experts at the CIA, the NSA and the FBI for, if they can't put one and one together. Iraq had nothing to do with September, 11th and the right it was to go after Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban for it, what I supported at that time, imagine that, the wrong it is to blame Saddam Hussein for this sad day. Probably there wasn't one single Al Qaeda member in the part of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in control of, up to the day the US military started their attacks. But since Saddam lost control of most parts of his country, now a lot of Islamic fanatics from Jordan, Iran, Saudi-Arabia and Syria pull into the Iraq to participate in the "holy war" against the American "aggressors" and to prepare the soil for an Islamic state, like that of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Saddam didn't want them in his country, but now you are paving the way for them by creating hatred among Moslem...

Besides, everyone knows that the US headquarters and central command for the war in Iraq is located in the small state of Qatar. Qatar is no democracy, it is a country ruled by a bunch of Moslem sheiks sitting on top of a mountain of money and oppressing all kinds of opposition, the personal freedom of their people and of course all demands for more democracy. Well, all of that is quite common in this part of the world, but did you know that Qatar supported the terrorists of September, 11th? Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an important member of Al Qaeda and the mastermind behind the plans for the attack on the World Trade Center, often visited Qatar as a personal guest of the government for example. The Secretary of Interior of Qatar, Sheik Abdullah Bin Khalid al-Thani, is a close friend of Osama Bin Laden and he supported him with his own money as well as with cash taken from public funds. He's not denying that, he's proud of it! And he is still the Secretary of Interior of Qatar, who is now responsible for the safety of all the American generals and soldiers there. Nice one, huh? If your troops want to fight against terrorism down there, they should bomb Qatar instead of Iraq perhaps...

So forget about the war against terrorism in Iraq. Saddam is a tyrant, but he's not a terrorist. Again the question occurs, what are the Americans fighting for down there in Iraq? Maybe you are one of those naive persons who believe America is fighting for the "good" and for a necessary "regime change" because of humanitarian reasons and because the people in Iraq suffered so much under Saddam's regime? In fact Saddam is a cruel dictator and tyrant who oppressed his people and reigned with iron fist, that's true, but who put him in place? Who is responsible for Saddam Hussein being the head of state in Iraq? Any idea? I can tell you... It's the United States of America! America supported Saddam for many years, America delivered tons of weapons to his regime during the 80s, America trained his troops, his instrument of power, America gave Saddam a lot of money, financial help and credits and treated him like a close ally. You can read that in every history book, perhaps not in an American one, because your government might not be that proud on the American support of Saddam these days, but in every European history book.

In fact it's a big hypocrisy when your president is telling the world, that America is outraged, that Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people" and that he has to be punished for it. Saddam definitely has to be punished for the crimes he committed, no doubt about that, but telling that as a reason, as an excuse for going pre-emptively after Saddam Hussein is nonsense. Saddam gassed the Kurds in northern Iraq in the late 80s and the US didn't say a word to him at that time. They didn't blame him, they didn't condemn what he did, they kept it quiet because he was their ally and because he was also gassing the enemy-of-the-month Iran at that time. The US even increased the amount of money donated to Saddam some month after he gassed the Kurds, because they wanted him to stay in control of power in Iraq. The swing of opinion in the heads of American politicians took place when Saddam refused to let US oil companies in his country to exploit the huge Iraqi oil reserves, not when he gassed his own people, and he became a real enemy, when he occupied Kuwait and cut off Americas cheapest oil supplier.

America didn't care for the Iraqi people in those days and it still doesn't care today. Be honest to yourself and you will have to admit, that bringing democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq is not a main goal and definitely not a reason for this war. It sounds quite good in public, but when Mr. Bush tells us such things, he's lying again. There are so many tyrants and brutal dictatorships in the world, especially in the Middle East, like Saudi-Arabia, UAE, Yemen or Qatar for example, in the heart of Asia, in Africa or South America which are all backed and supported by the United States. Why don't you go after these dictators? Why don't you bring freedom and democracy to their people? Why don't you go after Islam Karimov, the cruel dictator of Uzbekistan? Why do you send him 3.000 American soldiers to prop up his regime, though he's killed his political opponents and oppresses his people? Ask your president that, I'm very keen on the answer... Well, not that much actually, because I know the answer. You have a double standard, those dictators who suit your economic interests are supported, and those who refuse to hand out their oil and mineral resources have to be removed.

Probably the change in fortune of Saddam Hussein was that he once signed a treaty with the French oil company Total-Fina and the Russian oil company Lukoil instead of an American company. These treaties are still valid and just in case the UN embargo would've been lifted one day, these companies would have had their hands on the Iraqi oil and earned the profits. The only way to remove these treaties is to remove Saddam and his government, so all he did can be declared invalid... Any idea why America wants to play the leading part in post-war Iraq? Why Mr. Bush has already made plans to exclude the United Nations from the post-war administration and the building-up of Iraq? Why he wants an American general to be the head of state in Iraq for the next few years and not someone sent by the UN or, worst possible case, an Iraqi politician? Americas never ending thirst for cheap oil supercedes it's commitment to democracy and freedom. This war is lead for American interests and not for the benefit of the Iraqi people or to bring them freedom and democracy. You got it now, huh?

All the reasons for the war in Iraq given to you by your president and your government are lies. Saddam Hussein is not a threat, whether for the world nor for America. He might have been a threat 12 years ago, but that got lost during operation Desert Storm and the last war in the Gulf area, when 250.000 thousand Iraqi people and almost all Iraqi military forces were destroyed by American bombs. Saddam's weapons of mass destructions were history long before your troops set foot on Iraqi soil and there aren't any relations between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. There are much more profane reasons for this war and I named some of them above. One might also be, that George Bush jun. wanted to finish the job his daddy George Bush sen. wasn't brave enough to finish, what cost him his re-election, but that's to much of a speculation and I want to stay objective.

Two years ago George W. Bush spoke about the "new world order" he wanted to establish during his period of office. That day I thought he wants to build a peaceful world without war, a world in which nations communicate with words and not with weapons, a world in which soldiers bring food supplies and medicine to the people, instead of dropping bombs on them. I was naive enough to think he maybe wants to do something against poverty and the hunger in the world, at least that he wants to avoid the mistakes of the politicians of the past and make it better. Now I know that he wants something different. His "new world order" means, that he wants to reintroduce the right of the stronger and lock in America's domination about the rest of the world. If he continues with this, America will not only loose most of its friends and allies, it will also destroy the progress this planet and it's population made since the end of World War Two. He will wave good-bye to international law and damage the United Nations and he will create thousands or even millions of new Bin Ladens, hating America as much as they can. This "new world order" looks a lot like the failed plans of old emperors...